One More Reason Why We Need the Employee Free Choice Act
There a host of good reasons why the Employee Free Choice Act should pass. They are very well articulated in the AFL-CIO website and AFL-CIO Blog. There’s also a wealth of information on TheHuffington Post.
According to those reports:
- 60 million people say that they would join unions if they could
- An employee who helps to organize a union has 1 in 5 chance of being fired
- Three quarters of the public -- nearly 73% -- are in favor of giving employees a fair chance to organize without employer obstruction and interference
There’s also a good reason for the passage of the Act I would like to share as an individual who has been representing employees for over twenty-five years. It may be obvious, but it's not often articulated.
Time and time again I have seen cases where employees were either prevented from or strongly discouraged from organizing a union. In some of those instances, employees were given handbooks which looked similar in many ways to union contracts as a substitute or an appeasement.
The handbooks contained provisions, employees were told, which would give them similar benefits and protections to what they would have if they formed a union. The handbooks contained provisions for progressive discipline, layoffs by seniority, bumping rights and more. The employees believed that they were protected and secure.
But when the time for layoffs came, seniority provisions were routinely not followed. Older employees were let go with 25, 30, and 40 years of experience. Women and minorities were fired in disproportionate numbers.
When we sued and attempted to get the provisions of the handbooks enforced we were told: “That’s just a handbook. Those are just 'guidelines’. It’s not a contract so we, the employer are not bound by it and can make choices as we see fit." Most judges went along with the corporations. The employees had no protection.
The result in tough economic times is that many employees in their 50’s and 60’s are let go while the younger, less experienced employees stay on. The older employees lose the only jobs they had ever had with little chance of finding any work and no chance of finding comparable work – too young for social security, not old enough for retirement benefits, no health benefits without income to pay for it – not a good situation for our country.
And it's not safe. Sometimes the older experienced workers -- those who know what they're doing -- are let go while the young and inexperienced workers are either retained or hired in to replace them. In many plants, it's a dangerous situation both for the workers and the community in which they live. I know of a case pending right now involving a chemical plant which frighteningly presents that precise scenario.
So unions are important for many reasons. But for someone who has represented countless individuals in age discrimination cases, they are particularly important in times of workforce reductions so that rules of fairness and safety instead of subjective attitudes of discrimination serve to control the harsh decisions that must be made.
Image: www.americasolidarity.org
